Kyleb wrote:
It is/was all a matter of trade-off's. The British Carriers were tough, but that deck armor came at the price of greatly reducing aircraft compliment, which meant they had fewer fighters to stop the bombers before they got the chance to attack the carrier(s).
British carriers also had a different set of operating expectations than the American "fleet" carriers. British carriers would be operating in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, often well within range of land based aircraft, increasing the odds of enemy air attack and the likelihood that the carrier would be hit. They also were not expected to cover the same kind of distances as the American fleet carriers did and had smaller fuel bunkers. That enabled their carriers to have more armor incorporated into their design, and they needed it! The additional armor clearly saved the HMS Victorious after it has heavily damaged escorting a convoy to Malta. A wooden-decked American carrier would have been far more severely damaged, and possibly sunk. It also saved the British carriers from the catastrophic damage when they were struck by kamikazes.
All sides learned the folly of wooden deck carriers. The Japanese mega-carrier Shinano, based on the Yamato-class hull, had an armored deck, as did the American Midway class (IIRC), and the 1950s Essex class modernizations incorporated armored decks.